We agree that requiring housing authorities to set a minimum rent of 30 percent is a mistake. Let me be fair to a man I voted for a couple of times, Ed Brooke. Ed Brooke did not do that. Ronald Reagan did it and Gramm-Latta did it. The Brooke amendment was never a floor on rents. The Brooke amendment set a cap on rents, 25 percent. Ronald Reagan came along and said, no, no, 25 percent is too low; we will make it 30 percent, and we will make it both a floor and a ceiling. Yes; if you say automatically that, if your income goes up, your rent goes up, there is some disincentive. Our amendment does away with that. We put a cap on of 30 percent but no minimum. And what does the gentleman from New York say? I am astonished that he could not come up with a better argument. He says, do not have a cap without a floor. Because if you have a cap without a floor, here is what he just said, the housing authorities hurting for money will go to the absolute limit.
Editor's note · Context
Debating the implications of rent caps and minimums for housing authorities.
Share
More from Barney Frank
I was particularly pleased that, unlike some others, he did not exclude Muslims from that tradition.
This is a legislative enactment that essentially says that the fact that I live in a loving committed marriage with another man is somehow a threat to other people's freedom.
This bill--and I will differ specifically with Mr. Labrador on this--empowers people to take my tax money and use it to do things and then exclude me and Jim from its benefit.
I urge staff to pay close attention to the differences in products offered by nonbank institutions and to be mindful of Congress's intent in financial reform that State consumer protection laws be preserved to the extent possible.





